Opinion
McMartin & Burke, W. Richard McMartin, Englewood, for plaintiff-appellee.
Harold L. Meadoff and David C. Vigil, Denver, for defendant-appellant.
PIERCE, Judge.
Appellant, Bernard H. Siegelman, and a corporation solely owned by him, were sued for moneys owed upon an open account. At the pretrial conference in November of 1971, an agreement of settlement was reached, subject to approval by the parties. Thereafter, the stipulation was reduced to writing, and the attorney who was representing both the corporation and Siegelman discussed the stipulation with him.
Subsequently, the agreement was filed with and approved by the court during December of 1971. The stipulation recited that the attorneys were fully authorized by their respective clients to enter into the agreement and that the agreement was binding on all parties. In substance, it provided for the vacation of the trial setting that had been scheduled for December of 1971, and the suspension of further action until February of 1972, in order that the corporation and Siegelman would have additional time in which to pay the debt. It provided further that in the event that defendant failed to pay by that time, judgment would be entered against the corporation and against Siegelman personally. The document bore the signatures of the attorneys for all parties concerned.
The account was not paid in accordance with the stipulation and on February 2, 1972, judgment was entered. At a subsequent hearing held pursuant to C.R.C.P. 69(d) on March 10, 1972, Siegelman was examined as to the corporate assets and his own personal assets. More than two months later, by his present counsel, he filed a motion to set aside the judgment as to himself personally. It is from a denial of this motion that he now appeals.
By his motion for setting aside the judgment, Siegelman contended that he had a meritorious defense to assert; that the attorney who stipulated to the judgment was acting without his knowledge or consent; and that his attorney was too ill at the time these proceedings took place to represent him properly. A complete hearing was held on the motion, and at the hearing all of Siegelman's allegations were refuted by the testimony of his former attorney. The determination of these issues under C.R.C.P. 60(b) rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. Where, as here, there is evidence supporting the final determination of the trial court, and where no abuse of discretion appears, we will not disturb the determination. Weeks v. Sigala, Colo.App., 509 P.2d 320; Moskowitz v. Michaels Artists & Engineering Supplies, Inc., 29 Colo.App. 44, 477 P.2d 465.
Judgment affirmed.
SILVERSTEIN, C.J., and COYTE, J., concur.